W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12 language-tagged literals

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:03:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4E21B63B.402@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 14/07/11 08:36, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> In your proposal, rdf:Text is equivalent to rdf:PlainLiteral so it seems
> redundent.
> Moreover, rdf:PlainLiteral was originally called rdf:text (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-rdf-text-20090421/ for instance) but this
> name was rejected because the concept of "text" includes many other
> features like directionality, font, structure, etc.

I don't think it's equivalent because by using a definition named by 
IRI, you are buying into using everything about definition.

We can't pick some of the rdf:PlainLiteral definition and not also 
introduce the rest of the spec. rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype and has a 
lexical space.  By using it, we pull in the use of "foo@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral.

I do agree "text" can also apply to various aspects - but I can't think 
of an alternative name best is rdf:TextString but that still says "text".

Received on Saturday, 16 July 2011 16:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:00 UTC